Obama Pledges to Continue the Drug War

How shall I respond when a prominent politician rejects drug legalization, while in the same breath criticizing the costs and consequences of our wildly bloated criminal justice system? Should I condemn his tacit endorsement of the drug war or give him credit for at least recognizing a problem that so many still pretend doesn’t exist? I guess I'll try to do both.

Here's what Barack Obama said when a questioner pointed out how lucky he is to have avoided arrest for his past drug use and asked if he would consider ending the drug war:

"I'm not interested in legalizing drugs,'' Obama said, adding that he prefers an approach that puts more emphasis on a public health approach to drugs and less emphasis on incarceration.

He said there should be more programs to keep young people from using drugs. And he said first-time offenders should be given help to overcome their drug use instead of being locked up at massive taxpayer expense from which they emerge as unemployable ex-convicts.

"All we do is give them a master's degree in criminology,'' Obama said. [AP]

What a shame that Obama's most forward-thinking comments on criminal justice reform must be prefaced with a rejection of the one idea that has a chance of working. The inherent flaw in Obama's narrow, palatable rhetoric is revealed unintentionally by The Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last:

The only problem with this is that there are very, very few people incarcerated for first-time drug use.

Last goes on to laboriously downplay the persecution of first-time offenders in our criminal justice system. It's an outrageous attempt to argue that everyone in prison deserves to be there. But it does have the effect of reminding us how limited Obama's proposed reforms truly are.

The root of our drug war-fueled incarceration crisis lies in the practice of vigorously arresting and criminalizing people for having drugs. As long as this machinery remains in place, our prison population will continue to grow exponentially. Obama's first-time offender focused model of criminal justice reform is like trying to drain an olympic swimming pool with a pint glass.

Meanwhile, the drug war itself continues to function as a massive black market job recruitment program; a fully functional drug offender factory whose participants are often much more addicted to grocery money than drugs. Treatment-focused reform strategies don't address or even acknowledge this. Still, it remains perfectly commonplace for proponents of partial criminal justice reform to insist that we continue imprisoning suppliers while searching for ever more suppliers to imprison, all while failing entirely to disrupt supply.

The silver lining here is that important people are becoming increasingly comfortable admitting that something is wrong. When the reforms they've agreed upon fail to address the problem, they can't just go back and pretend to be cool with it. They've promised to fix our criminal justice system and if they continue to follow the trail of clues, they will eventually find themselves face to face with the war on drugs.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

This is such a tough issue that politicians face. It's a topic that affects almost everyone in a meaningful way since we all know, work with, live with, or are related to people who use drugs. I don't necessarily believe that decriminalizing everything would be the best approach, but I see that last paragraph as the main point of this whole story in that we all know there's something better we could be doing to fight this. Until we can figure out a replacement for all these people's addictions that is positive, I think this whole drug war and it's effects will just keep on spiraling out of control. If Obama surrounds himself with enough of the brightest people, and America makes is a big enough point to him, I'm sure he will get things rolling in the right direction.. even if it isn't on his major agenda right now.

If you vote for anyone else other than Ron Paul on Feb 5, 2008, then you are voting YES to:
1) The Drug War
2) The War in Iraq
3) The Lying and Cheating and stealing from the American People in the Name of the Iraq and Drug wars
4) The accompanying loss of civil liberties of all Americans that comes with such unConstitutional wars
5) The loss of privacy for all US Citizens
6) The First "Jim Crow" laws ever on the books: the "gun (negro)control" laws (I know this contradicts liberal misinformation, so here's my proof: http://www.blackmanwithagun.com )
7) Obama also voted to fund the PATRIOT Act, and to authorize the president to invade Iraq... (which was illegal, according to the US Constitution, by the way)

If you want to end the war on drugs, you need to vote for Ron Paul on Feb 5, 2008. The drug war directly violates the property rights of all Americans. For that reason alone, all drugs should be as legal as alcohol, and for the same reason (even though alcohol is one of the most dangerous mind-destroying drugs that exists).

Why do I think so? Well, Obama won't even consider legalization, because he's an untrustworthy ball of slime that openly disavows the idea of individual property rights (which is also why he supports the "Jim Crow" "gun control" laws that the Black Panthers fought and died opposing --ironically, the first "Jim Crow" laws were gun control laws...). And, gee, Ron Paul has a 20 year track record of publicly calling for an end to the drug war, even when it lost him money, friends, and influence in D.C...

Barack Obama was not a U.S. Senator yet when the war was authorized. At the time, he came out against it.

If Ron Paul had a chance (or has a chance by time the primaries get to North Carolina), I'll vote for him, but out of the "first tier" candidates, I bet Obama's position is as good or better than the others.

I think you're right, with the exception of a Ralph Nader. Our politicians and the American people as a whole will realize, sadly, that this hypocritical war on drugs is a social, moral and economic travesty that can only end (as indeed it began) as an utter failure; one which is completely contrary to the constitution and spirit of America's core principles, and serving only to fuel those who would put us in great peril while at the same time pulling down the temple on our own heads.

people that think like like you are swinging for the bleachers with both hands tied behind your backs.
you want to change people's drug use to "positive" addictions (like biking hiking or rollerblading or something).
well, that's big big of you--- and highly condescending? naaaaahhh.
people don't want your help, most of them.
they'd probably prefer that you and the rest mind your own business.

sicntired@mac.com Vancouver,B.C. The key word is decriminalization.How can anyone disagree with this?Even Obama says it should be a health issue.He's trying to be elected president.If he continues to imprison people for the same things he admitted to doing himself.He's a hypocrite.I'm a Canadian but what he's saying is more progressive than anything I hear from ANY of the parties up here.Let's give him a chance.Hilary Clinton would probably increase sentences and smoke a joint with Bill to celebrate.

I guess Obama has learned the lesson taught be Goebbels (the nazi propaganda minister) "If you repeat a simple lie enough, people will belive it". I read his book. He stands for the status quo with him being the beneficiary parasite of our tax dollars, and nothing more.

How servile are the American people? How enslaved are their minds that they cannot use Youtube or google to seek out the truth?

Only Ron Paul stands for INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. Only Ron Paul wants to set free ---PARDON--- EVERY NONVIOLENT DRUG AND GUN OFFENDER.

So fight the new prohibition! Fight the new slavery! Be a part of the solution that is individual freedom!

Obama or Clinton will be a choice in the general, and they both represent luke warm socialism, and incrementally larger government. You'll get your chance to vote for the status quo.

But your chance to have a real debate take place IS OVER after February 5, 2008, unless Paul gets enough votes to keep it going.

Every honest person on this board should investigate Ron Paul's congressional homepage. Or better yet, his chapter from the book "The New Prohibition" ed. Bill Masters (of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), where he calls for legalization of all drugs, and a complete end to the unconstitutional drug war. Do it now, and vote for Paul on Feb 5, 2008, for your property rights (NOTE: the term property as used here includes "scary private property" like guns, drugs, and motorcycles).

You might not get another chance to vote for freedom in your life. Don't screw it up.

It thrills me when I hear Dr. Paul inject realism into the Republican debates and I am even encouraged by his popularity in Austin but I am disturbed by some credible allegations of at least way un-evolved racial attitudes. I also have never heard any Libertarians mention the modern corporation. The symbiotic relationship between business and government is as much a threat to freedom as intrusive government by itself.

I suspect Obama believes the drug war lie himself, not that he is intentionally lying to perpetuate it. Either that, or he just doesn't think it's an important enough issue to risk speaking about NOW in the campaign. There will be plenty of time to pressure the next president once he or she is in office. Change is incremental, but it WILL happen, with or without an Obama presidency.

My personal view is that Obama is one of the candidates more likely to be receptive to the idea of rethinking the drug war. Seriously, do you think John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee would be better in this regard? Feel free to support Paul during the primary, but I hope you will consider supporting the Democratic nominee once the primaries are over. The Republicans (other than Paul) are absolutely nuts on the drug issue, as on so many others.

Also, even if you think a Nazi comparison is justified, please don't use it; it weakens your case. See also Godwin's Law.

Not to be technical, but the poster who brought up Narconon and rehab didn't actually say that he thinks people should be forced into treatment. He didn't express a view on that either way, only that prison isn't the answer, that rehab should be available for those who need it, and that his sister did need it. I don't know what he thinks about legalization, the difference between use and abuse (do we all agree that abuse exists even though use doesn't imply abuse?), whether people with serious drug problems should be mandated into treatment, or whether the state should take care in such cases to avoid mandating religiously-based programs as the choice of treatment.

Just so everyone is clear on where I do stand:

Not all use is abuse, in fact most isn't, even for the most abusable types of drugs;

People should not be mandated into drug treatment, certainly not by the criminal justice system;

Programs that actually help people, such as good treatment programs, or harm reduction efforts like needle exchange, are good;

Religious aspects of drug treatment programs, or self help programs, are no less important for being cognizant of and avoiding state mandates than for other types of religious programs;

It's true that Narconon is affiliated with Scientology, though I am not familiar with the extent to which they coordinate with the larger organization;

In Thialand 1,140 people have been killed because of an operation called "An Eye for an Eye" In Thialand they are considerably more efficient at fighting their War on Drugs, than we are. They managed to kill this many of their own people in just one month. Our bully boys had better get their act together. How can we let ourselves be "OUT KILLED' by Thialand. We shouldn't fall behind in our killing, look at all the money we spend. I, personaly, believe that the only reason Thialand even has a War on Drugs is because we (USA) pressured them into it. Check out Canada, and tell me it aint so. I feel anger, I feel frustrated, I feel helpless. I feel that if I stand up, and speakout, no one will care, because I will be only one small voice, and easly dismissed. If you believe the War on Drugs is wrong, join an organization that agrees with you, leap.cc, norml.org, safer to name a few. Join the War against the War on Drugs.

The U.S. government has heard the will of the people and they don't care. It's time to fight back. Why should the residents of America or anywhere else care to follow their wishes? They ignore they ignore their own laws and stretch the power of the executive branch way beyond the poewr of the people! It's time to fight back. Ignore their baloney and stop wasting your seeds. Give back to the earth that gave them to us. Hemp has been food, fuel, and pharmaceutical - it's time for it to be a weapon. Take it to the rivers, lakes, and streams... leave seeds in puddles and storm drains... press them into some soft bread and feed them to the ducks and geese... press them into some cheese fish bait and go fishing... put them into bird feeders... drop them into storm drains and puddles... press them into some ground meat and leave them for the foxes and coyotes to eat and distribute, feed seeds to your outdoor cat or your dog that you take to shit in the park or neighbors yard... FREE the WEED! SO WHAT if the result is ditch weed... it's NOT about THC content anymore or profits... it's about freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of weed! Spread the word and your seeds. Enlist you relatives, budd buddies, and neighbors. Reforest what man has cleared in the name of progress... reclaim earth for our plants. Your government cannot possibly tear out every wild weed if we all work together. The D.E.A cannot possibly eradicate our plant of choice if it grows like wild fire... that's why it's time to stop crying about prices and busts and free your weed! Don't throw away the gift of life that is in each seed and don't hoarde them the way so many well meaning (but lazy) smokers do... plant them all. Toss the anywhere there is water- irrigation ditches, lakes, rivers, gardens and parks... anywhere they can haver a chance to grow. If one tenth of all smokers did so there would eventually be too much of our favorite plant to eradicate. Prices for market weed would have to be competitive because there would be free ditch weed for all. And the best part- no more having to bumm smoke from a Budd and nome more having to bumm them some... just send them to the nearest wild crop. It's Time For Revolution! Free weed is just a seeds throw away. So what if the result is ditch weed... it's not about THC content anymore or profits... it's about freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of weed! Spread the word and your seeds. Get every friend, neighbor, and relative to help fight the war on the war on drugs. Reforest what man has cleared in the name of progress... reclaim earth for our plants. With enough plants we could fight Global Warming! Your government cannot possibly tear out every wild weed if we all work together. In just a few years we could see it overwhelm them to a point where they will have to legalize low THC content cannabis... and that's a move in the right direction. Drop your seeds in every flower pot, planter and garden at your local courthouse, police station, library, and park. Let them know they cannot stop our plant!

The same goes for the humble poppy.It will grow on a dirty rock and makes a killer tea.Just don't drink too much.It's only available for a month a year so there's no downside(forgive the pun).If the plant is available every where the war on drugs becomes redundant.Good idea.

How disappointing. One of our best hopes is spouting the same old tired rhetoric. Maybe, as one of the previous posts pointed out, Mr Obama will have the good sense to surround himself with the brightest people as Mr Clinton did and one of them will nudge him into a more far-sighted position regards this failed enterprise we've been calling the War on Drugs. The propagandists tool of choice is to call a plan a war and thereby lend it some sort of legitimacy and sense of urgency. I'm for starting the War on the War on Drugs!

Let's face it no-one running on an 'end the drug war' ticket will get far in the US, we had our shock in the primaries with Obama and Huckabee in Iowa,( not that Obama would have changed anything as we just read) sadly Ron Paul will fade out like most dreams and we will all wake soon to see Mrs Clinton in the White House. So with no change in Drug policies on the horizon we need a new way to end this money pit of a war, the only way any Govt will listen to it's people is when the people make enough noise!, it's time for a massive programme of civil disobedience!. we need people to put themselves in the firing line, swell the courts and prisons to such a ridiculous extent we force a change in policy, it worked in Holland in the 70's, it will work here. You know we are all quick to spout how successive regimes have learnt nothing in three + decades but we are also guilty of not learning, we should have learnt that for all our protests we have also got nowhere in this time, it is time now for a new form of protest, one that the blindest of Govt's can see, we need people being arrested in the thousands, so many, that normal police work cannot be carried out , and then do it all again the next day and the next and the next, if enough people are going through the court system, charged with something without a victim like say possession of a joint, ( smoke it if you like) good normally law abiding citizens with families who will also be making a noise about their loved ones being incarcerated, they have to listen, so many that the Companies of the country cannot do business. When America the Company cannot do normal business that the Govt will listen, OK!, if not my way here, another, as long as the result is cells bursting at the seams with people who want their day in court , people who will not accept a caution but want to be judged by their peers. It really is time we changed our way because you can bet the next President, whoever it is will not be rushing to reform any drug laws any time soon.

Good old-fashioned killer alcohol. Listen up Obama and all the rest of you who claim to believe in liberty and justice for all: alcohol supremacism over marijuana is sheer unadulterated bigotry. The whole war on drugs is a catastrophe, but the war on weed is a travesty of justice since alcohol is so much more dangerous to life and limb. The Centers for Disease Control doesn't even keep records on marijuana related deaths! Send this joker justice to the trashcan of history already.

Rapists violate bodies, Robbers violate property, Vandals violate property, Assaulters violate bodies, Murderers violate bodies, Insider Trading violates property, and so on. They should not complain when police violate their body and property, for they have initiated the violence in the first place.

The power of the police comes from the violated citizen, so that citizens do not take matters in their own hands and make things worse.

No violated citizen, no crime.

Following principle, violating nonviolent drug users IS the crime, because it is where the violation has been initiated.

When our civilization is too immature to understand this and instead thinks that crime is something that can be legislated out of thin air, it is in a very sad state indeed.

Barack Obama is not for change. Voting Clinton in 1992 did not bring about change. Voting Bush in 2000 did not bring change. Even voting in the 2006 congressional elections did not bring change.

I think this is a great point. It seems everything is based on pragmatism, i.e. "the ends justifies the means, etc."

There seems to be no cognizance that the idea of personal liberty is that our human lives are a mysterious event whose purpose can best be guessed to be for individual happiness and creativity, and that because of this laws, particularly criminal laws, should be enacted with the greatest restraint and humility. As far as we know, this is our only life, at least in this time and place. If our politicians and their constituents thought about this more often, maybe they would be less anxious to run our lives with unprincipled drug laws.

Unite cannabis users! declare war on "the war on drugs." First and most important step would embrace overgrowing North America with cannabis. Perhaps organizations and philanthropic individuals could underwrite the project establishing an infrastructure to distribute seeds and assign target areas. Secondly as mentioned above a massive campaign of civil disobedience needs to be started. Any singular event should ensure the presence of enough individuals to overwhelm local authorties and render incarceration an impossibly. No matter what strategies are adopted, action programs much more robust than currently contemplated are needed.

Debating what the President's attitude on drug use is misses the point. The President, and the Federal government generally, have no business addressing drug use, even if he personally thinks that drugs should be illegal. Drug treatment programs are beneath the office of the President.

"I'm not interested in legalizing drugs,'' Obama said, adding that he prefers an approach that puts more emphasis on a public health approach to drugs and less emphasis on incarceration.

Drug use is a state issue. If Colorado wants legal drugs, that's Colorado's choice. If Nevada wants to keep drugs illegal and go the treatment route in court, that's Nevada's choice. If Arizona wants to keep drugs illegal and throw everyone in jail, that's Arizona's choice.

There's no reason for a one-size-fits-all, Federally-mandaded approach to drugs. The Federal government needs to step out of the way and remove its prohibition on possession and distribution of controlled dangerous substances. The states will fill the gap.

I think one good reason for drug policy to be mandated by the federal government can be seen from this hypothetical thought expirement:
Georgia has strict drug laws, where marijuana, cocaine, and heroine are strictly illegal, and these laws are strictly enforced. Alabama is extremely lax, where heroine and cocaine laws are weakly enforced. As a result, many drug users from Georgia travel to Alabama to purchase their drugs. Alabama becomes a hotspot for drug trading. The territory becomes more profitable for drug dealing gangs, it is disputed more heavily, and crime rates in Alabama related to drugs skyrocket.

So, how can the American's civil right to the pursuit of happiness be restored without this resulting increase of crime? Legalization of drugs on a federal mandated level. The answer is obvious, and yet the capacity to recognize the validity of the question is not.

David
Student at the University of Florida
Member of the Libertarian Party

While I fully support legalization and decriminalization of all drugs, I also support Obama. If Obama wins he will at least stop incarcerating everyone, no other major candidate will do anything but expand the drug war. Also, if you believe what he says, you're assuming politicians tell the truth; the truth is that if Obama said he favors legalization, then he could not be elected and we'd have a republican or hillary in the white house. While he may not end the drug war, he will be the first president to decrease its funding.

Here's the reality. Read a little on the "prisoner's game" and game theory, on wikipedia if you /have/ too. These sorts of things never work because there are too many "defectors."

All of you individuals talking about civil disobedience on a mass scale are out of your minds. It will never happen. Never, ever. Unless there is a major recession and you get small communities uprising, there's no way in hell it or anything like it will ever happen. We are more disconnected in this day and age than ever, /even though/ they call this the "information age." Just because millions of people can read the same website, or watch the same youtube video, does /not/ mean millions of people are going to be moved enough to actually do what one person, or even hundreds or thousands, say they should do.

You are greatly over-estimating the will power of modern humanity. Nietzsche was watching and documenting The Will crumble to dust with his "modern" world, and he lived in the 1800s.

There are three things which can cause drastic change in a modern society. One, violence. Two, majority opinion (and we will never have a majority of drug users in the US, so get over it.) and three, money.

But even money isn't enough. A top Harvard economist estimated that the US Government could pull in literally tens of billions yearly if they legalized marijuana and taxed it properly. That's still not enough to offset the number of jobs created in the sector dedicated to incarceration, law enforcement, and drug-testing agencies - not to mention rehab, which is an ever growing industry in this country.

So, that leaves only one option. Violence. Good luck getting enough weapons and soldiers to fight your revolutionary war in the name of legalizing drugs. You've got about 5% of the population who actually do them at any given time, and far less than that willing to take up arms.

Soon enough, it won't even matter. Civil liberties will be gone, and we'll be living post-1984.

"Two, majority opinion (and we will never have a majority of drug users in the US, so get over it.)"

I am not a drug user, but would smoke marijuana (or at least possess marijuana) in an act of civil disobediance were it planned in my area.

After writing that ^ , I considered how it would effect all of my job applications and resumes how I would have to say that yes, I have committed a felony, and have been arrested for possession of illegal drugs. And in considering that, I realized just how much more important that act of civil disobedience - to act as a vanguard for civil liberties - is than any job I would miss out on for performing it.

David
Student of the University of Florida
Member of the Libertarian Party

Here's what I've noticed most about the tactics used by prohibitionists and reformers:

So-called prohibitionists reach out to parents and hold up pictures of addicted kids, drug abuse by kids, and predatory drug dealers targeting kids. They are reaching out to the majority of voters: the parents. Anytime a politician considers drug policy changes, he's always going to think if this will fly with the parents.

Reformers reach out to a tiny minority of the voters (mainly those under 30) with civil liberties arguments and hold up pictures of inmates with tatoos and dreadlocked hair. How far has it taken us since NORML was founded nearly four decades ago.

Point: Our goal is to get our "policy reform" elected like the politicians right? Well, who are the majority of voters? People over thirty who don't smoke marijuana anymore. What do they care about most in the world? Their kids, grandkids, nephews, nieces, etc. We should frame our message accordingly. Any time you think about drug policy reform, answer the question "how will this make kids safer?" If you don't, the drug warrior you are debating will.

What this has to do with Obama:

Support for "legalizing drugs" is often interpreted by the majority of people as supporting a "laissez faire" model or alcohol model for currently illicit drugs. I think it would be a very intelligent move for every drug policy reformer in any debate or interview to say at the outset they are against "drug legalization" and trash any other attempts to define you or your policy with vague simplistic labels, then reach out to the parents by elaborating how the current permissive drug policy brings drug dealers into our residential areas and schools and rewards them with tens of billions of untaxed dollars every year. Only within that context can you talk about regulating the drug market and be taken seriously.

You're forgetting that alcohol is, sure as hell, a drug! Some of big pharma's products are psychotropic too. Aside from that, you're assuming that only (illegal) drug users will support legalization, in the case of cannabis that's not the case. 44% support for legalization in thre 2006 Nevada referendum, 41% in Colorado. And I question the assertion that non-violent resistance would never work. As these referendum (don't bug me about Latin grammar) numbers show, the time might be ripe for it in the case of cannabis. It would dramatically focus attention on a debate that the other side is quite afraid of having. As David or Scott asked recently, if marijuana is so dangerous, then show us the bodies. Also the defiance of overwhelming public opinion favoring medical marijuana has, I think, givng many people grounds to wonder if the government knows what it's doing when it comes to marijuana.
I unfortunately don't see major progress soon in lightening up on the use of other drugs than weed, more focus on treatment over jail for users and user-dealers is one thing that is reasonably possible to hope for.

The marijuana tax act of 1937, everyone should read it, at first it looks like just rules for how much to tax people for owning or selling pot, nothing about making it illegal, but then something happened, someone added crazy rules about enforcement that make no sense at all and are clearly designed to not only discourage the use of MJ but also to prohibit it. I believe that if we can draw attention to this bill people in congress with common sense wil realize that simple changes are needed that will not only save alot of money on pointless enforcement but that the taxes will help our economy, as well as several other positives resulting from re-legalization, such as medical marijuana research, industrial hemp production making eco-friendly products like hemp plastic that's biodegradeable, yup, biodegradeable plastic, and also clothes that last much longer than cotton, hemp seed oil has alot of applications, in fact everything that's made from dinosaurs (oil) can instead be made of hemp seed oil, ending the foreign oil dependancy problem, because hemp can be grown in every US state. This is not new information, it was simply suppressed by those who would lose money if hemp was industrialized, the same people who fund the anti-marijuana ad's that still run today, and the same people that used their political ties to make hemp illegal in the first place. When these people and their acts are exposed to the light and common sense is applied I believe we can defeat them and correct the laws, the truth is out there, use it. . . nonfakename.

The CSA is a licensing Act with criminal punishment for any person doing the licensed functions with licensed drugs. An idiotic Law as licensed functions cannot be punished as felonies, in other words the CSA mixes "contract Law with criminal Law's Punishments". No grand jury can sanely indict for "contracted functions" as if a "felony has been commited"!

Now that Obama has won, will we allow him and his police to control us, or will we assert our right to live in peace and freedom?

I urge you all to withhold your consent.

I recommend http://www.kopbusters.com to those who wish to engage in civil disobediance. The blueprint is there for all of us to follow. We must be smarter than our enemies. We must be nonviolent, but show them for being the thugs they are. We must be the change we wish to see.

The law is a tool, not an obstruction. Where statutes dictate control, consent is hidden by ignorance.

Unfortunately I bought into the Obama propaganda machine. His appointments have been one disappointment after another. Business as usual! People will still go to jail for using a harmless plant. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!!

The lobbiest for the distillers, will make sure their profits are not endangered by pot decriminalization even if it means thousands more arrest, careers lost, not to mention loss of tax revenues that dwarf their sales. Number1 Cash crop in the US Marijuana $35,803,591, #2 Corn $23,299,601 (x$1000) Based on a comparison with average production values of other crops from 2003 to 2005 marijuana is the top cash crop in 12 states, one of the top 3 cash crops in 30 states, and one of the top 5 cash crops in 39 states. Marijuana is the largest cash crop in Alaska, Alabama,California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,Tennessee, and West Virginia. Anyone who for a moment thinks the "war" is a sucess is probably still looking for WMDs in Iraq. In fact, the Iraq war pales compared to the US drug war in ranking of dismal failure as well as all the repercussions, such poorly thought out stategy, the disregard for civil liberties and lack of respect for the constitution. If nothing else, the last 8 years has taught us that the ends do not justify the means. We have truly declared war on our own families, with staggering ignorance as to addiction (which is curious, when you consider most law makers were at one time addicted to tobacco) and the total lack of control of alcohol/cigarette consumption among teens. Remember all the tobacco money the states received a few years back. Remember the states promise to use the money for drug (cigarette) education/treatment? If we really gave a hoot about our kids, we would have never allowed the politicians to spend that money on everything but. Sport stadiums WERE more important than our childrens future. If Obama does indeed walk on water, then at some point he'll recognize how much the drug war is stealing from his other programs, such as health care. At the very least, lets pray he'll ditch the manditory minimum disgrace, figure out a way to relieve our prisons of non-violent drug offenders and once and for all resove states rights as to medical marijuana.

Hi everyone. Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work.
I am from Jordan and bad know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Printeris; bralik versioon saada brale."

if you look at our history and the worlds history on drugs and their wars and stopping them. it didnt stop the drugs or the violence it got ten times worse. nor should anybody be able to do drugs. what needs to be done is strengthen the rights on cops but do so it doesnt take rights away but make it so they can basically arrest all mobsters/gangster who do drug crimes then rehabillate them this what were not doing this right there would cure.